Talking Talmud

What happens to a loan on collateral if the collateral is lost? A discussion that leads into an application of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer to Shmuel's position - which seems counter-historical in terms of how the Gemara is put together. Also, does the shemitah year cancel the debt that is loaned on collateral? Perhaps that depends on whether it's symbolic or covering the loan.

In the interest of catching up, we're foregoing the description here... (this daf was (is!) for Friday, and we appreciate your cooperation and forbearance at this complicated time)

In the interest of catching up, we're foregoing the description here... (this daf was for Thursday, and we appreciate your cooperation and forbearance at this complicated time)

NOTE: We are still dedicating our study of daf yomi to the speedy and complete recovery of בילא פריידא בת העניא מינא - Baila Freyda bat Henya Minna (with apologies for any mis-transliteration).

NOTE: The app we use to record has updated itself and is blocking the recording of some of the Hebrew/reading from the Talmud. We apologize for this and are looking for a solution in the next few days.

Biblically mandated oaths vs. rabbinically mandated oaths - which leads into the question whether the defendant can kick it back to the plaintiff. For a deaf-mute, cognitively impaired person, or a minor - they have the protections against theft. But the reversal of oaths remains possible, and flips on its head, when you know an oath-taker is likely to be unreliable in doing so. Also, a mnemonic to help remember the halakhah. Plus, looking to keep those who are expected to swear falsely from swearing at all.

When person A claims that person B owes him 2 things, and person B agrees that he owes part of the claim, but not both parts - which brings us to the claim of "modeh be-miktzat," and the need to take an oath to avoid having to pay back. With variations on the theme in trying to determine the way to put this kind of law into practice. Also, 3 related rulings, including regarding intention.

This episode and our future learning for the time being are dedicated to the speedy recovery of בילא פריידא בת העניא מינא - Baila Freyda bat Henya Minna (with apologies for any mis-transliteration).

Beginning with some words of explanation for our recent delays.... and moving on to further discussion of false oaths, wicked people, lying, the punishments that take place, and why the courts administer oaths the way they do. Plus, the insidious "reed of Rava."

The end of chapter 5: Someone says: Give me my deposit that is in your possession - and the response is one oath that seems to stand for 5 separate denials. With 4 tannaitic opinions as to when the oath counts for a single oath vs. a group of them -- with 2 different methodologies. And starting chapter 6: with a new mishnah, and a new oath -- issued by the judges. The mishnah is long, reviewing the cases of the chapter... many of which are "modeh be-miktzat" - agreeing to part of the claim, and therefore requiring the oath.

An oath on a deposit - to make it clear that it's not in the person's possession, for example. A deliberate false oath of deposit means a korban asham - a guilt-offering. Back when they were studying Shevuot in yeshiva in the time of the Gemara - witnesses warn the person not to swear falsely. Note - the korban asham is fairly unusual, in that it is itself the punishment, or the guilt, and not for the sake of atoning. Plus, Rav Kahana's question about witnesses warning against false testimony - but is that warning a halakhic warning for all sins, in general? It would seem not. Also, a refinement - the guilt-offering only is incumbent when the false oath is intentional - and without witnesses. Plus, the way the oath for the deposit has more stringent halakhot than those for the oath of testimony.

Finishing chapter 4 and beginning chapter 5! The term "Amen" has an element of an oath to it. As does "No." And "Yes." With support from God's promise to never destroy the earth via water again. Plus, what happens when an oath is in the form a curse, swearing to the negative? When would the Ineffable Name of God be required - if one is going to curse "in the name of God"? A new mishnah! (with the new chapter) - An oath over a deposit or collateral. How aware does the oath-taker need to be of a violation, in order to be liable for a false oath? Plus, the penalties and liabilities...including personal injury - as a monetary issue.

2 mishnayot and a good amount of Gemara! 1 - Administering an oath to one who could testify about a plaintiff, but instead denies that he saw anything - the false-oath-maker would still be exempt from the korban. One who asks a whole congregation to come forward - that's not even an oath. Plus, several other cases where the oath-taking would not be sufficient to make a false oath incur the need to bring a korban. 2 - If one insists one take the stand, but not with the language of oath - the commitment is implicit. But taking an oath in the name of the heavens and earth - no, because they are not in the Name of God. Likewise, cursing in the Name of God needs God's name. Also, the Gemara: The question of whether erasing partials of God's name counts as erasing God's name. Plus, interpretation of verses to God's power, not angels. Plus, the vineyard of Navot. When are the texts talking to God, as compared to referring to something other than God?